Has SCOTUS been compromised?

[Jonathan Walkerin]

the most unbelievable part of the whole thing is that there was someone leaking information about the goings on in the SCOTUS.

You know Kraken hears everything.

 

[Bobber]

Now you're off into full blown conspiracy theory territory.

Don't think I believe too many of those. Let me ask you though...do you believe everything that's told you that comes from the standard lines? Do you think you shouldn't wonder or question anything?

 

[Bobber]

Extraordinary claims require more than a tweet from SGOTI.

And I agree. If that's all Texas legislature is going on when a member there brought up what he read I think you need more than a tweet to base it on.

 

[Nithavela]

Don't think I believe too many of those. Let me ask you though...do you believe everything that's told you that comes from the standard lines? Do you think you shouldn't wonder or question anything?

Basing your argument on "what if everything we have been told is false and the opposite is true" without any corroborating evidence is pathetic.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How do you KNOW for a fact they haven't met?

1. They SAY they haven't.
2. There's a pandemic going on.
3. They're not morons.

What if the official line is different then what they actually did? Bottom line is you're assuming the person who said they heard this is lying.

And you're trusting an anonymous source on twitter over the Supreme Court of the United States.

See a problem here?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If it happened you might have a valid claim. The point is that we know it did not happen as stated in the apparently openly lying article that you posted. You got sucked in on a lie.

And worse, he's found people to spread the lie.

The lie's father will be so proud...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Basing your argument on "what if everything we have been told is false and the opposite is true" without any corroborating evidence is pathetic.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well the person who stated this has alleged this took place.

And the truth is that the story could not have possibly happened as the "person" alleged -- do you understand that?

Sometimes if a story takes wings other people come forward to substantiate that maybe they did meet. Or maybe you're correct they didn't meet at all.

That won't stop you from believing it.

When I hear a report like this I don't consider it as proof or that it can be substantiated but consider it as maybe interesting.

You've already accepted it as proof... don't backpedal now.

I don't take the presumptuous position however that it's absolutely impossible that they didn't come together.

We already know they didn't.

But since you've already accepted the story as true, you won't believe that.

As for me I don't accuse Roberts of having said this BUT if he did I think it'd be wrong.

Indeed -- which is why it's a good thing he didn't say it.

Now it's your turn to admit it: Roberts didn't say it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from American Politics to Conspiracy after thread review by staff.

​

 

[SilverBear]

hmm... I have meetings with people at my work - from home... behind closed doors in my house.. Or... is that not possible in your view?

your own link says the shouting was in the "US Supreme Court Chambers"

 

[SimplyMe]

That's not the point. The point is if the allegation is true it shows a justice would set aside what would be he rights of all States involved and there were many wanting their case heard. And he doesn't maybe because of the fear of riots? Then wouldn't that mean if you want something done you've got to all act like a bunch of animals? Let me add this I'm not even saying I believe a person heard this I believe innocent until proven guilty but if he did say it I think it'd be wrong. A legal system can't work that way.

That is the point, the fact that Roberts can't control the votes of the other Justices, so it doesn't make sense that he'd be yelling and screaming about "riots," just shows how outlandish this claim is, even if we didn't know they hadn't met.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the person who stated this has alleged this took place. Sometimes if a story takes wings other people come forward to substantiate that maybe they did meet. Or maybe you're correct they didn't meet at all. When I hear a report like this I don't consider it as proof or that it can be substantiated but consider it as maybe interesting. I don't take the presumptuous position however that it's absolutely impossible that they didn't come together. As for me I don't accuse Roberts of having said this BUT if he did I think it'd be wrong.

Always vet the source. It does not appear to be a reliable one. Second see if the story makes logical sense. It does not on multiple levels. Third look at your feelings. Are you just looking for an excuse to believe? Would a conservative court go out of their way to vote against Trump? I don't think so.

 

[TLK Valentine]

your own link says the shouting was in the "US Supreme Court Chambers"

Clearly his link can't be trusted... except where it says this absosmurfly must have happened... none of the details can be trusted, because you know they can all be faked, but this is the truth... more or less.

 

[whatbogsends]

I am seeing news outlet statements about John Roberts in 2020 after Nov 3 yelling at other SCOTUS members behind closed doors telling them not to accept election cases that might cause a riot.

google "The justices are arguing loudly behind closed doors."

Supreme Court In Violent Argument Over Texas Lawsuit - Dark Outpost

And another one about Roberts in 2019 talking to a fellow Justice (Stephen Gerald Breyer) stating that they need to find ways to ensure that the blankety-blank President will not be re-elected.

https://www.reddit.com/r/tucker_carlson/comments/kf56vo/in_discussing_realdonaldtrump_in_phone/

==========================

1. Roberts is of course free to not like the President and even to work politically and legally against him.
2. I don't know how accurate the news items are.

3. But if they are true - then Roberts (and possibly Breyer) should have recused himself from cases dealing with the President's election interests and should make sure all of SCOTUS knows of his bias.

4. And if the call between Roberts and Breyer did happen as reported and the content was as stated - that would mean they would both have to recuse themselves from any election-related court case they allowed SCOTUS to review in detail... to fully adjudicate .. might be an incentive for finding some other way to not have to get into that situation.

On top of the OP being soundly refuted based on facts, it's always amusing when conservative posts news articles from anonymous sources, when they spend every day complaining that the MSM uses anonymous sources in their articles.

Disinformation with a side order of hypocrisy. Delicious!

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why are you making this up?



You keep buying into the lie long after it has been debunked.... why?

Because he is a true believer and patriot. Never underestimate the hold that the risen Trump holds on people.

 

[Bobber]

Always vet the source. It does not appear to be a reliable one. Second see if the story makes logical sense. It does not on multiple levels. Third look at your feelings. Are you just looking for an excuse to believe? Would a conservative court go out of their way to vote against Trump? I don't think so.

Yes good ways of assessing things but let's not take a position that something is absolutely impossible when it comes to whatever thing. There used to be a time with investigative journalism where a claim would be made and press would start asking questions from other people to see even though it might be deemed as highly unlikely they'd still ask around to other people. Not sure we see much of any of that today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes good ways of assessing things but let's not take a position that something is absolutely impossible when it comes to whatever thing. There used to be a time with investigative journalism where a claim would be made and press would start asking questions from other people to see even though it might be deemed as highly unlikely they'd still ask around to other people. Not sure we see much of any of that today.

No one has taken the side that fraud is impossible. The problem for Trump supporters is that they cannot seem to find ANY reliable evidence. That indicates that the fraud that they whine and cry about did not happen.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes good ways of assessing things but let's not take a position that something is absolutely impossible when it comes to whatever thing.

Enough with the "absolutely impossible" canard...


Did The Supreme Court meet in chambers?

They did not.

Therefore, the article is a lie.

End of story.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

How do you know what the OP posted isn't true?

How do you know that it is? People making an assertion have the burden of proof. Citing unnamed "news sources" is woefully insufficient.